When we met at the 2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference, Janet said she was going to try and kick-start a debate. That's why I took the picture.

There are several different issues, so in order to keep the discussion focused, I'm going to limit myself to only one topic per posting. This one's about the relationship between science and technology and where "ethics" fits in.

Here's what concerns me about teaching "ethics" in science classes. I wrote this in my first posting ....

These are two different cases. In the first one, the question is whether the value of debating controversial "ethical" issues outweighs the disadvantages. The biggest downside, in my opinion, is the emphasis on technology as opposed to pure basic science. By giving prominence to "ethical" issues we are emphasizing the consequences of genetic knowledge as it relates to the human condition.

I prefer to spend my time trying to convince students that knowledge for its own sake is valuable. It's hard to do that if the fun part of the course has to do with the application of genetic technology in the creation of genetically modified foods.

Part of the problem arises from a desire to please the students. How often do we hear the complaint that students aren't interested in biochemistry and genetics? The students are bored by science so we have to add sections on genetically modified foods and genetic screening to our introductory genetics courses. Isn't this strange? Rather than concentrate on making the basic science as interesting and exciting as possible, we cater to the students by giving them the topics they think are interesting. That's no way to educate.

Let's make sure everyone understands my concern. Part of what we need to do as science teachers is to make sure our students understand the difference between science and technology—between the uses of science and the accumulation of scientific knowledge. This is a very important task in today's society since the confusion about the difference between science and technology is widespread. How many "science" fair projects have you been to where there are dozens of engineering projects but not a single pure science project?

The goal, as far as I am concerned, is to convince students that knowledge for its own sake is a valuable commodity regardless of whether or not the knowledge can be applied to the betterment (or destruction) of Homo sapiens. For example, genetics is a science that will help you understand how life works at the molecular level. It will also help you understand evolution. That knowledge will enrich your life. Genetics is not just a bunch of tools that will lead to better medicine or better food crops. Students need to learn that the vast majority of geneticists in universities are not directly motivated by a desire to cure diseases or compete with Monsanto.

Whenever we introduce so-called "ethical" discussion into genetics classes, we invariably use examples where it's genetic technology, not the science itself, that generates the controversy. Surely nobody sees an ethical problem with generating knowledge about how genes work? It's how you use that knowledge to manipulate organisms that causes the problem.

Thus, for those of us who are trying hard to raise the consciousness of students, the introduction of such "ethical" debates wipes out all the effort we have made to get them excited about knowledge itself.

Here's Janet's response,

I think a lot of people draw the lines rather more starkly than they ought to be drawn -- claiming that scientific knowledge and technologies are value-neutral and it is only the ways that they are used that make them "good" or "bad".

I do make that claim. Knowledge of how genes work is "value-neutral"—it does not generate any ethical problems unless you want to argue that ignorance is preferable to knowledge.

I do not claim that the uses of genetic knowledge (i.e., technology) are value-neutral.

However, when students learn a particular bit of knowledge or a particular analytic technique, it's natural for them to wonder, "What do you do with this?"

This is, unfortunately, true, My goal is to change students' minds so the question doesn't always pop into their heads whenever they learn something new about the natural world. I want them to appreciate the value of curiosity-motivated research and the value of knowledege for its own sake.

To the extent that people teaching science want to encourage their students to see it as something with relevance beyond the course in which they're learning it, talking about real-life applications of science can be a good thing.

But that's the problem! I do not want to encourage students to always be thinking about relevance. I want them to learn about evolution, for example, even if you don't use it directly to make a new drug.

(Don't forget, the students who see the beauty of the scientific knowledge itself are probably the ones who will, in the not so distant future, have to motivate the larger significance of the research they want to undertake in order to secure grants to fund that research.)

My long-term goal is to educate society, including politicians, so they will fund basic science for the sake of knowledge and not for the sake of "relevance." I start with my students. If I succeed, then at some point in the distant future scientists won't have to bullshit their way through a grant proposal in order to cater to the false notions of what science is all about.

So, people teaching about genetics, for example, might want to talk about different ways genetic knowledge and technologies could be used, the potential outcomes of various uses, and who has a stake in what happens -- who could be helped, who could be hurt, what the costs are for the benefits that might be brought about, etc. Is this a discussion that teaches students everything they need to know about the ethical practice or application of science? Of course not. However, neither is it a discussion that requires detailed technical discussions about different ethical theories -- which is to say, it's the kind of discussion a trained scientist who is reasonably reflective about various stakeholders in society ought to be able to lead.

Let me emphasize that I am reluctant to bring up these "ethical" issues because the downside is worse than the upside. However, I agree with you that most scientists could do an acceptable job of moderating the debate without extensive training in philosophy. It's mostly just a fun way to let off steam while pretending that it's relevant to genetics.

On the other hand, I disagree with some of my colleagues who think this is a way to teach "ethics." If you really want to teach ethical reasoning then you need training in ethics. This probably means a degree in philosophy or at least hanging out with philosophers for several years.

"I do make that claim. Knowledge of how genes work is value-neutral"—it does not generate any ethical problems unless you want to argue that ignorance is preferable to knowledge. I do not claim that the uses of genetic knowledge (i.e., technology) are value-neutral."

That is how I would partition it. The question for me is how to map that to the real world.

I am used to see laws and/or ethical committees that guide development (for example, animal tests), and ethical statements that suggest practice (for example, the engineer union statement on fair practice). But no courses (not many anyway) for students. Seems like the above maps well where I live.

"My long-term goal is to educate society, including politicians, so they will fund basic science for the sake of knowledge and not for the sake of "relevance.""

Yes, we would need a more elaborate answer to Jeff's question here. Why value science knowledge and use above technology knowledge and use, and what are these values? Science and technology are codependent, and the society values the later most (and see more of it) since it is what generates the most economical value. But I feel most of this should be besides the ethical debate.

"So, people teaching about genetics, for example, might want to talk about different ways genetic knowledge and technologies could be used, the potential outcomes of various uses, and who has a stake in what happens -- who could be helped, who could be hurt, what the costs are for the benefits that might be brought about, etc."

Interesting. Yes, a survey of values like time, cost, quality and ethical concerns could improve research practice and future outcome - ethical committees should only frame issues to avoid misuse. But it can't be terribly important - research or predicted use is unfortunately not often big industry.

Ah, now you're getting into the applied vs. pure/basic science argument. I'm not sure you can change someone's interests in one side or the other just by exposing them to pure science without the justification of application. I'm a scientist, I love knowledge for knowledge's sake, but my degree is in fisheries instead of biology because I was interested in applied research, not basic research. Granted I'm only a sample size of one, but still...

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.